Tennis has become an increasingly popular sport in recent years, and many new courts have been constructed. However, the construction has not kept up with the demand, and the number of players wishing to use the courts at a given time typically exceeds the number of courts available. Thus it is necessary to fairly and effectively allocate court time. Within this broad context of excess demand, several specific problems have presented themselves.
First, is the problem of maintaining numerical or sequential order among a plurality of waiting players. The normal rule is that available courts are allocated to players on a first come-first served basis. It is important that a court control system accomplish this ordering very effectively, so as to avoid disputes among waiting players. Aside from equitable considerations that demand this outcome, disputes and haggling over position tend to result in a non-negligible of idle time for the courts while players are waiting. Moreover, a system that is unreliable tends to be disregarded by many.
Second, in order to make sure that each of the limited number of tennis courts is in use substantially all of the time, it is important to make sure that the waiting player whose turn it is to play next is present to take over the court as soon as it becomes available.
A third problem, related to the second in being the logical opposite, is presented by overeager players awaiting a court. Since the courts, by virtue of their size are spread about, the waiting players are forced to continually monitor the courts to determine when a court becomes free. In order to make the inquiry more effective, the waiting players are likely to ask those players using the court when they will be through, thereby bothering them.
Fourth, is the problem of imposing time limits on court usage. If no such time limits are in effect, waiting players have virtually no way of determining in advance how long a wait is in store for them. Once time limits have been established, it remains a problem to insure that players abide by them.
There exists a prior art court control system that is responsive to all these problems. Broadly, it involves having an attendant present at all times. This attendant keeps track of waiting players, courts in use, and appropriate time limits. While an attendant-based system is reasonable for a tennis facility where the players pay to play, since the attendant would have to be present to collect the money anyway, it is particularly unsuitable for a public tennis facility due to the expense of maintaining a person on the premises.
A basic approach that seeks to emulate the attendant, without the attendant, makes use of a chalkboard wherein arriving players enter their names on a list and players using a court signify on the board when they are going to be finished with the court. Thus, the players themselves theoretically accomplish the function of the attendant. However, such chalkboard-based systems, while sound in theory, have proven to be highly ineffective in practice. One of the prime reasons for this is the fact that the chalk itself is easily lost or stolen. Moreover, exposure to the elements results in the chalk's becoming wet and unfit for use. Additionally, an eraser must be provided to maintain the information on the board in a relatively legible state. Erasers, like chalk, are easily lost, stolen, or damaged. Pranksters are also a problem, since it is very easy matter to simply erase all the information that is on the board. Vandals are a further problem since the chalkboards are easily defaced.
Another way of maintaining order among a group of waiting tennis players is to provide a chute into which an arriving player places a tennis ball. A first come-first served system is maintained with the balls in the chute providing a visual display of the relative priorities among the waiting players. This system avoids most of the difficulties of the chalkboard system, but provides less information. In particular, no information regarding time of availability of the various is maintained or displayed. A problem shared with the chalkboard system is that there is nothing to tie a waiting player to the tennis court area, since a tennis ball is an item of little value. Thus, waiting players tend to arrive, deposit a tennis ball, and depart, trying to estimate when their court will become available. In the event that the guess is inaccurate and that a court becomes available for that player when that player is not present, that player may lose his turn entirely or have his tennis ball placed in the chute in the rearmost position.
An attempt to avoid this latter difficulty makes use of tennis rackets rather than tennis balls as markers signifying player priority. Thus, prior art tennis court control systems have incorporated a board having a plurality of pegs, each of which is adapted to have a tennis racket hung therefrom. A system such as this has the problem that all the tennis rackets need to be moved periodically as players at the front of the line remove their rackets to commence playing. The increased handling of the tennis rackets increases the chance of the rackets getting mixed up, or worse yet, damaged.